INTRODUCTION: A number of studies have evaluated the effects of subcutaneous drainage during digestive surgery. All of the previous studies assessed the usefulness of active-suctioning drain, including two randomized controlled studies which found no benefit for the placement of active-suctioning drains in digestive surgery. The utility of passive drainage has not been evaluated previously. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of subcutaneous passive drainage system for preventing surgical site infections during major colorectal surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 263 patients who underwent major colorectal surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous passive drainage or no drainage. The primary outcome measured was the incidence of superficial surgical site infections. The secondary outcomes measured were the development of hematomas, seromas, and wound dehiscence. RESULTS: Finally, a total of 246 patients (124 underwent passive drainage, and 122 underwent no drainage) were included in the analysis after randomization. There was a significant difference in the incidence of superficial surgical site infections between patients assigned to the passive drainage and no drainage groups (3.2 % vs 9.8 %, respectively, P = 0.041). There were no cases that developed a hematoma, seroma, or wound dehiscence in either group. A subgroup analysis revealed that male gender, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status ≥2, blood loss ≥100 ml, and open access were factors that were associated with a beneficial effect of subcutaneous passive drainage. CONCLUSIONS:Subcutaneous passive drainage provides benefits over no drainage in patients undergoing major colorectal surgery.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: A number of studies have evaluated the effects of subcutaneous drainage during digestive surgery. All of the previous studies assessed the usefulness of active-suctioning drain, including two randomized controlled studies which found no benefit for the placement of active-suctioning drains in digestive surgery. The utility of passive drainage has not been evaluated previously. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of subcutaneous passive drainage system for preventing surgical site infections during major colorectal surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 263 patients who underwent major colorectal surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous passive drainage or no drainage. The primary outcome measured was the incidence of superficial surgical site infections. The secondary outcomes measured were the development of hematomas, seromas, and wound dehiscence. RESULTS: Finally, a total of 246 patients (124 underwent passive drainage, and 122 underwent no drainage) were included in the analysis after randomization. There was a significant difference in the incidence of superficial surgical site infections between patients assigned to the passive drainage and no drainage groups (3.2 % vs 9.8 %, respectively, P = 0.041). There were no cases that developed a hematoma, seroma, or wound dehiscence in either group. A subgroup analysis revealed that male gender, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status ≥2, blood loss ≥100 ml, and open access were factors that were associated with a beneficial effect of subcutaneous passive drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous passive drainage provides benefits over no drainage in patients undergoing major colorectal surgery.
Authors: David J Leaper; Harry van Goor; Jacqueline Reilly; Nicola Petrosillo; Heinrich K Geiss; Antonio J Torres; Anne Berger Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Martin Druce Batstone; Derek Lowe; Richard J Shaw; James S Brown; E David Vaughan; Simon N Rogers Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: F E Muysoms; S A Antoniou; K Bury; G Campanelli; J Conze; D Cuccurullo; A C de Beaux; E B Deerenberg; B East; R H Fortelny; J-F Gillion; N A Henriksen; L Israelsson; A Jairam; A Jänes; J Jeekel; M López-Cano; M Miserez; S Morales-Conde; D L Sanders; M P Simons; M Śmietański; L Venclauskas; F Berrevoet Journal: Hernia Date: 2015-01-25 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Matthew D Grimes; Michael L Blute; Tyler A Wittmann; Michael A Mann; Kristin Zorn; Tracy M Downs; Fangfang Shi; David F Jarrard; Sara L Best; Kyle A Richards; Stephen Y Nakada; E Jason Abel Journal: Urology Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jaime Ruiz-Tovar; Marja A Boermeester; Liliana Bordeianou; George J Chang; Emre Gorgun; Christoph Justinger; Elise H Lawson; David J Leaper; Najjia N Mahmoud; Christopher Mantyh; Michael F McGee; Valentine Nfonsam; Ines Rubio-Perez; Elizabeth C Wick; Traci L Hedrick Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 6.532